The use of modern technology has inadvertently created newer platforms for intimate partner victimization to take place. The present study investigated (i) whether psychological, sexual, and stalking intimate partner cybervictimization (cyber IPV) types were uniquely associated with alcohol use, and (ii) whether there were additive effect of cyber IPV types on alcohol use, after controlling for histories of childhood maltreatment types, face-to-face intimate partner victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) emerging adults. Participants were 277 self-identifying LGB individuals in the age range of 18-29 years (M = 25.39, SD = 2.77; 16.6% lesbian, 25.6% gay, 43% bisexual women). Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing cyber IPV types, namely, psychological, sexual, and stalking, five forms of childhood maltreatment, face-to-face IPV types (i.e., physical, psychological, and sexual) and alcohol use. Findings indicated that 29.2% (n = 81) endorsed all three type of cyber IPV. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that only sexual cyber IPV was uniquely associated with alcohol use. In support of the cumulative risk hypothesis, those with exposure to three types of cyber IPV were more likely to have greater alcohol use compared to those with exposure to any one type of cyber IPV. Findings indicate that cyber IPV can lead to behavioral health challenges, such as an increase in alcohol use among LGB emerging adults. Findings call for interventions focusing on generating awareness regarding the ill-effects of cyber IPV, and for mental health professionals to develop treatment programs to aid in the wellbeing of the victim.

Cyber intimate partner violence (C-IPV) is a technology-mediated form of violence. It has been examined only in the last 10 years as a form of violence that can cause psychological damage to its victims. How this phenomenon connects to and differs from face-to-face IPV (F2F-IPV) has been, as yet, little studied. Research has not made clear whether sex differences may impact its use, particularly in light of the fact that no physical coercion is used in C-IPV. Thus, the current research aimed to investigate through a meta-analysis: differences between the average levels of different types of C-IPV victimization and perpetration; the association between C-IPV and F2F-IPV victimization and perpetration; and whether the answers to these questions were dependent on sex. The current meta-analysis drew on 46 studies, within 44 papers, with a total sample of 27,491 participants. Findings from 22 of these studies showed no significant sex differences between the average levels of different types of C-IPV victimization and between different types of C-IPV perpetration. These 22 studies showed positive large effect sizes for the correlation between C-IPV and F2F-IPV perpetration and victimization. Moreover, in both perpetration and victimization, sex did not impact the level of association. The findings suggested that C-IPV and F2F-IPV are highly correlated, and though not the same, they may share similar characteristics. Additionally, the results suggested that sex differences do not impact non-physical aggression, such as C-IPV. The implications for preventive strategies include that IPV interventions should also focus on alleviating instances of C-IPV.